Talk:Fett
Absolutely everything that can possibly be said about this race from the source is present in this article. All other entries in the sidebar are unknown. User:Captainmike, can you please explain why you keep stubbing this, rather than waging a cryptic edit war? -- BadCatMan (talk) 15:13, August 27, 2012 (UTC) :I see information in the body of the article that could be added to the sidebar. :The edit war you refer to involved your reversion of my edit rather than initiating communication. I've protected the article to prevent you from reverting the addition of the stub message until such time as I have a break in my editing schedule to finish looking at what else could be added. -- Captain MKB 15:16, August 27, 2012 (UTC) ::Based on the information given, this (and Bursen (race)‎‎) really have no information that can be put into the sidebar that is not speculation. The RPG doesn't go into any detail about them, since the only thing found were fossils, and the various items in the side bar are all not given, other than the single feature already mentioned. I can't figure out what you think should go into the sidebar, so instead of simply reverting BadCatMan's removal of the stub (which I agree with), can you share what information should go in there? Or even add it yourself? ::Aside: Stub is for short articles. If the sidebar is incomplete, the article is really "incomplete", not a stub. -- sulfur (talk) 18:38, September 14, 2012 (UTC) ::And now they're marked incomplete. But again, I don't see what (based on the information we have) could be added to the sidebar that is not speculation. Mike: can you give a hand here? I'm a bit at sea on this one. -- sulfur (talk) 19:42, September 14, 2012 (UTC) Glad to, Sulfur. I have some thoughts on how to add information to the sidebar that will expand these articles. I haven't had time to pick up the work, do the research, etc., so i'd like them to remain on the incomplete list until I get around to it. Apparently my previous statement of this fact wasn't sufficient for some, but do you take me at my word? -- Captain MKB 20:05, September 14, 2012 (UTC) ::When you phrase it that way, it seems much more reasonable. The way it led to this, I had no idea you had plans to do that, as you seemed to be acting rather obstinate about the situation. :) -- sulfur (talk) 21:28, September 14, 2012 (UTC) I refer Sulfur to the previous discussion on this topic at Talk:Bursen, where I previously asked MKB for an explanation or an update and received no response. In all the intervening time, MKB has popped up regularly on the wiki to do his regular stuff, so it appears he's had plenty of time to have a think about this. All known information is present in the article, so I'm sure it's not a matter of research. And I'm afraid Mike's word means nothing to me, not any more. I recall no other pages on this wiki being required to have a sidebar/infobox, and I can't find a rule for it. But Mike demanded one, so I added it and filled it as best I could, because I'd rather work with my fellow editors than against them. But apparently this still wasn't enough, but I can't even be told why in all this time. I've looked at this several times and still have no idea what can be done. The only thing I can think of is making character pages for the archaeologists who discovered them, which I'll do shortly. -- BadCatMan (talk) 02:24, September 15, 2012 (UTC) :PS: I've made the other pages, corrected links and made the necessary disambigs. -- BadCatMan (talk) 03:09, September 15, 2012 (UTC) :Just to make it absolutely clear, I have some thoughts on how to add information to the sidebar that will expand these articles. I haven't had time to pick up the work, do the research, etc., so i'd like them to remain on the incomplete list until I get around to it. -- Captain MKB 15:54, September 15, 2012 (UTC) Would you like to share these thoughts with the rest of us, or should we wait in suspense another few weeks? I disambiguated these the way I did because the races are named after the people, rather than the other around. I'm not sure why this was a problem. — BadCatMan (talk) 04:28, September 16, 2012 (UTC) :I'm referring to the standard way we've been disambiguating in the past - the disambiguation is to match most other similarly disambiguated articles about races and cultures, not to show which name originated the other. i've never been made familiar with any desire to have disambiguations show a linear progression like that, but i'd prefer to match the style to other articles, as per standard operating procedure. :as to clearing the incomplete, i've already stated i wish to work with the material later on, and am using the incomplete message to flag it as such. i was never made aware of any time limit for placing a stub or an incomplete on an article. it's not really a matter of sharing my thoughts as it is finding time to work on reading up on the material and possibly refining the way that particular sidebar template is formatted. :and you've made it quite clear i'm not welcome to 'share my thoughts' with you, so, no, i won't be doing so, especially in the face of petty personal attacks like your statement earlier today that "my word means nothing to you". Basically, i'm going to enforce a cool down period every time you choose to behave like this, BadCatMan. I don't need to work on articles that are directly related to your continuing desire to take jabs at me personally, so I hope you recognize the fact that the incomplete flag being unresolved is a direct result of your attitude making it difficult for another user (me) to approach an article you seem irrationally fixated on to the point of making immature commentaries and edit wars regarding a very simple maintenance message that flags the article for later attention. -- Captain MKB 04:57, September 16, 2012 (UTC) ::I can understand BadCatMan's frustration with this situation. He made changes, asked on the talk page what the problem was, and received no response. As such, he removed the stub mention, rightfully, and then it was just reverted, with no explanation. His actions may not have been correct in this situation, but your responses elevated the tensions, unnecessarily. In the interest of keeping two valuable editors happy, can we agree that this entire situation was poorly handled by all sides, pretend it never happened, and move on from this mess? ::BadCatMan: In future, please try to keep the personal criticism and commentary to a minimum. ::CaptainMike: When reverting a change (especially for the 2nd time), please give reasoning as to why you are doing that, and what you hope to achieve. ::Dialogue is the only way that we'll be able to successfully communicate and create the best possible database of useful information. When we start getting petty and stupid, then we all spend more time spinning our wheels than actually expanding the information we have collected. -- sulfur (talk) 15:11, September 16, 2012 (UTC) :::Thank you, Sulfur. I'm glad one of us is reasonable. :) :::I did the research, I wrote the article. I follow it and it pops up all big and bold demanding a response. Naturally, I should feel responsible for it. If there's a problem with anything I do, I'd like to be given the opportunity to discuss it, reasonably and calmly, and perhaps fix it. At this point, I'm honestly intrigued as to what Mike thinks can/should be done to the sidebar. Most infobox entries aren't documented, so I've just had to take best estimates or look other articles for examples to fill them out. I keep drawing a blank on what else can be done. If you'd like to share these thoughts, Mike, we could discuss it and maybe I could do the work. :::But I feel this an improper use of the stub and incomplete tags, as defined by those tags. These are patently not stubs nor incomplete, we all agree on this, so the labels send a false message. There isn't any more information. It just feels like vandalism. By all means, bookmark them and work on it at your leisure, but these articles don't have to be falsely marked as flawed for you to do so. :::I honestly try not to make any of this personal. Heck, I removed my grumpier responses last time. I only tried to state why I wasn't satisfied with Mike's statement of intent. Now if I said why I felt that way, that would be making it personal. Mike's opened enough discussions with insinuations, baiting and personal attacks of his own, so neither of us can claim innocence. But I'm never the first to make these personal. I've spent nearly two hours writing this, a day later, editing and re-editing to get my point across clearly and without intended offense. :::Frustrated is the right word. When I keep finding my work being criticised for reasons I find spurious, not written down, not widely known, or not stated at all, when my entirely reasonable proposals are shot down without community discussion, when attempts at discussion are opened with insinuations or personal attacks from Mike, well of course I'm going to feel frustrated and annoyed. I've been here two years, made over 5000 edits, been a prolific and quality writer, sorted out some of the most complex topics, made reasonable proposals whether you agree or not, worked at cleaning up vandals, sourcing images, and so on. I like to think I should have earned some respect. I really don't want to keep butting heads with you, Mike. I'd rather stick to a separate corner of the wiki and not get involved so much, but Mike's everywhere, on everything, and hard to avoid. :::I've tried settling these disputes calmly. I've tried making peace and talking over the problems. I've tried not getting involved. I've tried dividing my time with another wikia so I'm not here so often. I've even tried being annoying. I've tried just ignoring the history and getting on with the work. Please, leave me alone, I do not want to keep fighting with you. But nor am I going to surrender or quit. :::I don't get into these scraps with Sulfur, I don't think, nor other editors here, nor at my other wikia. Elsewhere, I'm a moderator and settler of disputers. It's only you, Mike. I'm not the only one to have significant problems with the way you conduct yourself as an administrator. I've seen others I'm sure feel the same way. I'm not the first, and I won't be the last. It's all to the detriment of Memory Beta. :::Yours truly, BadCatMan (talk) 10:07, September 17, 2012 (UTC)